![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Should this page's name be changed to "Kilometres per hour"? Vancouverguy 22:45, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why has someone changed the spelling from kilometre to kilometer. Kilometre with the "tre" is the standard worldwide spelling only Americans spell it that funny way G-Man 23:00, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
kph is a measurement of speed, not velocity
kph is a measurement of nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.140.55 ( talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that vectors require a direction. If so km/h could not be a vector, it would need to be 'x km/h, north' or something like that. I made an edit on that basis but it was reverted. Can this be clarified? Bobblewik (talk) 4 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
At Knot (speed) someone changed 'm/h' to 'metres per hour' because it looked too much like 'miles per hour'. That's fine with me, but I was wondering. Isn't that usually written as mph? Which would solve the ambiguity. And is 'm/h' an acceptable notation for 'metres per hour'? I suppose it is because in the metric system you can combine anything with anything. Although km/h and m/s are more common. DirkvdM 09:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that residential areas are usually 20 or 25 mph, or about 30 or 40 km/h. Are they actually 50 km/h in metric countries? 50 km/h (about 30 mph) is a bit fast for a neighbourhood... koolman2 08:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |work=
(
help); More than one of |work=
and |journal=
specified (
help)Does anyone else think that this is not really necessary. Firstly, what it looks like on the photo despends on the shutter speed of the camera. If the shutter speed is different, then the image would look very different too.
Also, does the image add any meaning to the article? Is it easier to picture what km/h means? Richard B 18:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The link that you currently have in your article points to a site that is an unauthorized copy of the other site. The original page of online speed conversion is http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/speed The site http://www.convert-me.com/ exists for years (you can check http://www.archive.org) and the illegal copy linked from this article was only placed recently. As the owner of the original www.convert-me.com project, I'll be happy to provide any additional information and proofs of authenticity. My name is Sergey Gershtein and my contact info can be found on http://sergey.gershtein.net/ I think I will go ahead and edit the page changing the link to make it point to the original site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.9.3 ( talk) 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really wrong? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kph http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kph http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=kph http://www.google.com/search?q=kph
All say kph is kilometers per hour.
I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?; the two of us (myself & User:Piercetheorganist) could have this discussion forever, and get nowhere fast. Hopefully, more people have that page on their watchlist, and will contribute. Oli Filth( talk) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I would add an wiki online convertion page (to change from km/h to mph and viceversa).
Something similar to :
but applied to conversions :
<inputbox> type=? width=24 break=no buttonlabel=km/h to mph </inputbox>
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a standard on Wikipedia for which side of the equation the page's subject should be on? The section here lists km/h on different sides for different lines, which is confusing. 205.167.180.131 ( talk) 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The article states "the official recommendation from the BIPM is to use km/h" (km/h in italics). The use of italics here is unfortunate. The BIPM specifically states: "Unit symbols are printed in roman (upright) type regardless of the type used in the surrounding text" http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.49.137 ( talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
De-italicised "km/h" as per suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.17.54 ( talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we should remove these. We already have interwiki links for many languages and having a translation for a dozen random ones doesn't add to the article. It is a weird criteria:
as well. - SimonLyall ( talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've chopped down the section so it now mentioned a couple of the translations in the text rather than a list - SimonLyall ( talk) 19:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I gave removed the "citation flag" because it has certainly been published, albeit in a round about manner: If you look at the refernece given, you will see:
Since the way in which units may be combined is not spelt out, one should look at the recital for guidance (which is why the recital is there). Here we see the paragraph "Whereas units of measurement are the subject of international resolutions adopted by the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM) set up by the Metre Convention signed in Paris on 20 May 1875, to which all the Member States adhere; whereas the ‘International System of Units’(SI) was drawn up as a result of these resolutions;",one should look at the SI brouchure for guidance (Extract here).
Finally an example of what this means can be found this EU direcitve. Martinvl ( talk) 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The term "km/h" is a symbol, not an abbreviation. The text that was removed was crafted to avoid using either term. It was also crafted to emphasise "offical" documents. That is the reason why I reverted the changes. Martinvl ( talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reinstated the older version because:
Martinvl ( talk) 08:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have partially reverted. My responses:
Please desist from stating that "Although a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation ..." becasue this has never been required. If you want to say something abotu the use of "kph" vis-a-vis "km/h", get an authoritative source to back up what you say. Martinvl ( talk) 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
None of the references that you gave relate to the use of the word "symbol" in the context where it was used, so in this context they are worthless. Martinvl ( talk) 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back from DRN. I'm going to be posting a few collections of facts. I am not (necessarily) arguing that they need to go into the article, and I'm not (necessarily) arguing that they need to go into the article in their current form. I'm not proposing that these replace any fact, citations or summaries that were rolled back recently.
Instead, I'd like to hear your opinion on whether or not y'all consider these to be accurate, sourced correctly (as per WP:RS) and do no fall afoul of WP:OR. If there are any problems in those areas, we need to get those thrashed out before we start talking about what should be included in the article. If I hear an argument along the lines of WP:UNDUE or similar I'm going to assume there are no WP:RS and WP:OR issues.
I would usually present these serially. In presenting them simultaneously I want to reassure Ornaith that I am taking her point of km/h-as-abbreviation seriously as well as reassuring Martinvl that I'm taking his point of km/h-as-symbol seriously.
Finally, I was very pleased with the level of civility everyone displayed in DRN (although coming from talk.origins my expectations aren't that hard to meet). I'm looking forward to that continuing here.
And with that, let's do some editing....
Garamond Lethe 02:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
A desire for standarization of weights and measures across international borders led to the creation of the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) whose first conference in 1889 sanctioned international prototypes for the meter and the kilogram. In 1927, the seventh CGPM conference further refined the definition of the meter and, with the seventh resolution of the 9th conference (1948) several symbols were associated with units, including the symbol m for meter and h for hour. The 11th conference of the CGPM (1960) selected six units, including the meter, to be considered as an International System of Units (SI) along with a standarized set of prefixes and their corresponding symbols (including kilo (k) for a multiplying factor of 1000). [1] Note that while the second was defined as the base unit of time during this process, the hour was not defined as either a base unit or supplemental unit and is defined instead as a Unit in use with the International System along with minute and day. [2] There are two methods for indicating a compound unit is the quotient of two or more units. A solidus may separate the units, thus producing km/h, or a negative exponent may be used along with either a space or a dot between units, thus km h-1. Note that conformance to the standard requires use of a Roman (upright) font. The symbol must not be changed to indicate a plural and no space should be left between a unit symbol and its prefix. [2]
The SI explicitly states that unit symbols are not abbreviations and are to be written using a very specific set of rules. [2] M. Danloux-Dumesnils [3] provides the following justification for this distinction:
It has already been stated that, according to Maxwell, when we write down the result of a measurement, the numerical value multiplies the unit. Hence the name of the unit can be replaced by a kind of algebraic symbol, which is shorter and easier to use in formulae. This symbol is not merely an abbreviation but a symbol which, like chemical symbols, must be used in a precise and prescribed manner.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Current accepted abbreviations of "kilometers per hour" are:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
In 1988 the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration promulgated a rule stating that "MPH and/or km/h" were to be used in speedometer displays. On May 15, 2000 this was clarified to read "MPH, or MPH and km/h". [1] However, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 101 ("Controls and Displays") allows "any combination of upper- and lowercase letters" to represent the units. [2]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Although the unit of length kilometer first made its appearance in English in 1810 [1], the compound unit of speed "kilometers per hour" was first observed no later than 1866 [2]. "Kilometers per hour" did not begin to be abbreviated in print until many years later, with several different abbreviations existing near-contemporaneously.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |Number=
ignored (|number=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |Volume=
ignored (|volume=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |Volume=
ignored (|volume=
suggested) (
help)
If anyone else would like to submit a body of facts for consideration this would be a reasonable place to do it. Garamond Lethe 02:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see the following changes to the section "Use of kpm":
Martinvl ( talk) 06:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Martinvl.
I like the overall direction you're going with this. I don't think the focus should be on "kph" as the primary abbreviation, though: it's just one of many (although it probably is the easiest one to find examples of).
Perhaps two sections instead of one?
I'm conflicted whether the abbreviation section should go first or not. There's a nice logical/historical flow with this ordering (why did we standardize? because there were a dozen different abbreviations floating around!) but I think this only works if it's clear in the overall article lede that the symbolic meaning is important. I think we can pull that off, but if you're not comfortable with the abbreviation section coming first I think we can figure out a way to work around that.
One way of handling that problem would be to name the entire section Symbols and Abbreviations, put your explanatory text in as the lede, and then make the two sections I described subsections.
Your thoughts?
Garamond Lethe 07:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the section should be called "Use of kph" (or that there should be two separate sections covering the abbreviations). All abbreviations can be covered in a single section called simply "Abbreviations". I like Garamond's ideas and would support sub-sections for each of the following (based on Garamond's research):
Sub-section: Abbreviation development Brief description based on Garamond's proposal 4.
Sub-section: The SI convention A summary of this, based on Garamond's proposal 1, with the rationale of their two different symbols.
Sub-section: Legal and quasi-legal To cover known legal requirements such as from the US (cf Garamond's proposal 3) and states' implementations of the EU directives.
Sub-section: Abbreviations in current use Based on Gaamond's proposal 2, describing diverse current use.
I agree with Martinvl that the section needs a brief introduction, but do not support the use of the word "shorthand" as it is more specifically used to mean a method of taking notes quickly. I can't see any problem using the standard term of "abbreviation", which covers symbols too. Also it is important that the introduction (and the section in general) remains neutral, without giving undue weight to the preferences of the SI over the preferences of habits of others. Ornaith ( talk) 14:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the above argument, which boils down to saying that the dictionary is wrong, WP:NOTLEX has this advice:
"When edit wars occur over the lead paragraph of a controversial topic, people may turn to more NPOV sources, like the dictionary. The dictionary is one source among many that is generally considered more authoritative than personal opinion."
"When faced with a dictionary definition that you disagree with, your alternatives are limited; you can either find a better dictionary with a better definition, or you can cite reputable sources that discuss the changing meaning of a given word." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ornaith, first, a small point: the SI is a standard, not a body, and so far as I know there's no discussion in the SI about language-independence. There's also not a sense of "preferred" in the document. So fixing these points we might have:
Either one of those work for you? I've just sent you a copy of IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997; I didn't know if you had found a free online version or not. Martinvl, I'm happy to send you a copy as well if that would be useful. Garamond Lethe 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Abbreviations and symbols
Several representations of "kilometres per hour" have been used since the term was introduced and many are still in use today. For example, dictionaries list "km/h", "kmph" and "km/hr" as English abbreviations and the SI representations are 'km/h', 'km h-1' and 'km•h-1' and are classified as symbols.
Abbreviation development
[Brief description based on Garamond's proposal 4.]
The SI convention
[A summary of this, based on Garamond's proposal 1, with the rationale of their two different symbols.]
Legal and quasi-legal
[To cover known legal requirements such as from the US (cf Garamond's proposal 3) and states' implementations of the EU directives.]
Abbreviations in current use
[Based on Gaamond's proposal 2, describing diverse current use.]
@Garamond, would you be prepared to replace the current section in the article with the outline from above, and fill in the detail from your excellent numbered points further up? That way we could see it all in the flesh, and take it from there. We might even be able to close this discussion then and leave it to develop naturally from there! Ornaith ( talk) 09:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
[ This] edit was disruptive.
First, it violates the basic Wikipedia principle that while there is an ongoing content dispute, the page stays at the last stable version. See WP:BRD. I once again Restored the 8 April 2012 23:12 (UTC) version as edited by LonelyGreyWolf. It was almost identical to the result after the latest edit/revert, but I wanted to make it crystal clear that I am not favoring either side of the dispute with my edit. Second, the edit summary was completely misleading.
Settle your differences on the talk page. Make an RfC if you can't agree and need more voices. Do not attempt to get your way through edits to the article without first getting consensus. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This version is informed by the previous discussion. I certainly expect the discussion will continue. Garamond Lethe 09:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As recommended by WP:BRD I have reverted a recent change to the image caption. If we are to change it, we need to agree the wording first. There are a number of problems with the wording change that Martinvl made.
The original wording was: "Irish speed restriction sign showing km/h"
Martinvl's updated wording: "Sinced the text "km/h" on this Irish speed limit sign is a symbol, not an abbreviation, it represents both "kilometres per hour" (English) and "ciliméadar san uair"( Gaelic)"
My updated wording was: "Irish speed limit signs clarify the speed unit to avoid confusion with non-united miles-per-hour signs that were used until 2005"
How about a compromise, combining the essentials of the two versions:
If that can be slimmed down a bit, but without losing any of the information, I'd be more than happy with that too.
Ornaith ( talk) 15:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the following sentences until we can clarify exactly what it is trying to put across:
Are they saying just that EU speedometers must be marked in kilometres per hour, or that the scale must use the "km/h" abbreviation/symbol? Are they saying that speedometers in the UK only have to have kilometres per hour on them, even though they still use miles per hour there? Either way, can we make the sentences unambiguous please. Ornaith ( talk) 16:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Should this page's name be changed to "Kilometres per hour"? Vancouverguy 22:45, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why has someone changed the spelling from kilometre to kilometer. Kilometre with the "tre" is the standard worldwide spelling only Americans spell it that funny way G-Man 23:00, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
kph is a measurement of speed, not velocity
kph is a measurement of nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.140.55 ( talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that vectors require a direction. If so km/h could not be a vector, it would need to be 'x km/h, north' or something like that. I made an edit on that basis but it was reverted. Can this be clarified? Bobblewik (talk) 4 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
At Knot (speed) someone changed 'm/h' to 'metres per hour' because it looked too much like 'miles per hour'. That's fine with me, but I was wondering. Isn't that usually written as mph? Which would solve the ambiguity. And is 'm/h' an acceptable notation for 'metres per hour'? I suppose it is because in the metric system you can combine anything with anything. Although km/h and m/s are more common. DirkvdM 09:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that residential areas are usually 20 or 25 mph, or about 30 or 40 km/h. Are they actually 50 km/h in metric countries? 50 km/h (about 30 mph) is a bit fast for a neighbourhood... koolman2 08:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in |work=
(
help); More than one of |work=
and |journal=
specified (
help)Does anyone else think that this is not really necessary. Firstly, what it looks like on the photo despends on the shutter speed of the camera. If the shutter speed is different, then the image would look very different too.
Also, does the image add any meaning to the article? Is it easier to picture what km/h means? Richard B 18:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The link that you currently have in your article points to a site that is an unauthorized copy of the other site. The original page of online speed conversion is http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/speed The site http://www.convert-me.com/ exists for years (you can check http://www.archive.org) and the illegal copy linked from this article was only placed recently. As the owner of the original www.convert-me.com project, I'll be happy to provide any additional information and proofs of authenticity. My name is Sergey Gershtein and my contact info can be found on http://sergey.gershtein.net/ I think I will go ahead and edit the page changing the link to make it point to the original site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.9.3 ( talk) 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really wrong? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kph http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kph http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=kph http://www.google.com/search?q=kph
All say kph is kilometers per hour.
I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#RfC: Should titles of article on units of the form "X per Y" be singular or plural?; the two of us (myself & User:Piercetheorganist) could have this discussion forever, and get nowhere fast. Hopefully, more people have that page on their watchlist, and will contribute. Oli Filth( talk) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I would add an wiki online convertion page (to change from km/h to mph and viceversa).
Something similar to :
but applied to conversions :
<inputbox> type=? width=24 break=no buttonlabel=km/h to mph </inputbox>
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac ( talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a standard on Wikipedia for which side of the equation the page's subject should be on? The section here lists km/h on different sides for different lines, which is confusing. 205.167.180.131 ( talk) 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The article states "the official recommendation from the BIPM is to use km/h" (km/h in italics). The use of italics here is unfortunate. The BIPM specifically states: "Unit symbols are printed in roman (upright) type regardless of the type used in the surrounding text" http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.142.49.137 ( talk) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
De-italicised "km/h" as per suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.17.54 ( talk) 18:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we should remove these. We already have interwiki links for many languages and having a translation for a dozen random ones doesn't add to the article. It is a weird criteria:
as well. - SimonLyall ( talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've chopped down the section so it now mentioned a couple of the translations in the text rather than a list - SimonLyall ( talk) 19:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I gave removed the "citation flag" because it has certainly been published, albeit in a round about manner: If you look at the refernece given, you will see:
Since the way in which units may be combined is not spelt out, one should look at the recital for guidance (which is why the recital is there). Here we see the paragraph "Whereas units of measurement are the subject of international resolutions adopted by the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM) set up by the Metre Convention signed in Paris on 20 May 1875, to which all the Member States adhere; whereas the ‘International System of Units’(SI) was drawn up as a result of these resolutions;",one should look at the SI brouchure for guidance (Extract here).
Finally an example of what this means can be found this EU direcitve. Martinvl ( talk) 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The term "km/h" is a symbol, not an abbreviation. The text that was removed was crafted to avoid using either term. It was also crafted to emphasise "offical" documents. That is the reason why I reverted the changes. Martinvl ( talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reinstated the older version because:
Martinvl ( talk) 08:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have partially reverted. My responses:
Please desist from stating that "Although a European Union directive requires the use of "km/h" as the abbreviation ..." becasue this has never been required. If you want to say something abotu the use of "kph" vis-a-vis "km/h", get an authoritative source to back up what you say. Martinvl ( talk) 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
None of the references that you gave relate to the use of the word "symbol" in the context where it was used, so in this context they are worthless. Martinvl ( talk) 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back from DRN. I'm going to be posting a few collections of facts. I am not (necessarily) arguing that they need to go into the article, and I'm not (necessarily) arguing that they need to go into the article in their current form. I'm not proposing that these replace any fact, citations or summaries that were rolled back recently.
Instead, I'd like to hear your opinion on whether or not y'all consider these to be accurate, sourced correctly (as per WP:RS) and do no fall afoul of WP:OR. If there are any problems in those areas, we need to get those thrashed out before we start talking about what should be included in the article. If I hear an argument along the lines of WP:UNDUE or similar I'm going to assume there are no WP:RS and WP:OR issues.
I would usually present these serially. In presenting them simultaneously I want to reassure Ornaith that I am taking her point of km/h-as-abbreviation seriously as well as reassuring Martinvl that I'm taking his point of km/h-as-symbol seriously.
Finally, I was very pleased with the level of civility everyone displayed in DRN (although coming from talk.origins my expectations aren't that hard to meet). I'm looking forward to that continuing here.
And with that, let's do some editing....
Garamond Lethe 02:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
A desire for standarization of weights and measures across international borders led to the creation of the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) whose first conference in 1889 sanctioned international prototypes for the meter and the kilogram. In 1927, the seventh CGPM conference further refined the definition of the meter and, with the seventh resolution of the 9th conference (1948) several symbols were associated with units, including the symbol m for meter and h for hour. The 11th conference of the CGPM (1960) selected six units, including the meter, to be considered as an International System of Units (SI) along with a standarized set of prefixes and their corresponding symbols (including kilo (k) for a multiplying factor of 1000). [1] Note that while the second was defined as the base unit of time during this process, the hour was not defined as either a base unit or supplemental unit and is defined instead as a Unit in use with the International System along with minute and day. [2] There are two methods for indicating a compound unit is the quotient of two or more units. A solidus may separate the units, thus producing km/h, or a negative exponent may be used along with either a space or a dot between units, thus km h-1. Note that conformance to the standard requires use of a Roman (upright) font. The symbol must not be changed to indicate a plural and no space should be left between a unit symbol and its prefix. [2]
The SI explicitly states that unit symbols are not abbreviations and are to be written using a very specific set of rules. [2] M. Danloux-Dumesnils [3] provides the following justification for this distinction:
It has already been stated that, according to Maxwell, when we write down the result of a measurement, the numerical value multiplies the unit. Hence the name of the unit can be replaced by a kind of algebraic symbol, which is shorter and easier to use in formulae. This symbol is not merely an abbreviation but a symbol which, like chemical symbols, must be used in a precise and prescribed manner.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Current accepted abbreviations of "kilometers per hour" are:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
In 1988 the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration promulgated a rule stating that "MPH and/or km/h" were to be used in speedometer displays. On May 15, 2000 this was clarified to read "MPH, or MPH and km/h". [1] However, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 101 ("Controls and Displays") allows "any combination of upper- and lowercase letters" to represent the units. [2]
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
What are the WP:RS and WP:OR issues of the following? Are there similar citations that should be considered here as well? Garamond Lethe 02:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Although the unit of length kilometer first made its appearance in English in 1810 [1], the compound unit of speed "kilometers per hour" was first observed no later than 1866 [2]. "Kilometers per hour" did not begin to be abbreviated in print until many years later, with several different abbreviations existing near-contemporaneously.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |Number=
ignored (|number=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |Volume=
ignored (|volume=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |Volume=
ignored (|volume=
suggested) (
help)
If anyone else would like to submit a body of facts for consideration this would be a reasonable place to do it. Garamond Lethe 02:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see the following changes to the section "Use of kpm":
Martinvl ( talk) 06:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Martinvl.
I like the overall direction you're going with this. I don't think the focus should be on "kph" as the primary abbreviation, though: it's just one of many (although it probably is the easiest one to find examples of).
Perhaps two sections instead of one?
I'm conflicted whether the abbreviation section should go first or not. There's a nice logical/historical flow with this ordering (why did we standardize? because there were a dozen different abbreviations floating around!) but I think this only works if it's clear in the overall article lede that the symbolic meaning is important. I think we can pull that off, but if you're not comfortable with the abbreviation section coming first I think we can figure out a way to work around that.
One way of handling that problem would be to name the entire section Symbols and Abbreviations, put your explanatory text in as the lede, and then make the two sections I described subsections.
Your thoughts?
Garamond Lethe 07:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the section should be called "Use of kph" (or that there should be two separate sections covering the abbreviations). All abbreviations can be covered in a single section called simply "Abbreviations". I like Garamond's ideas and would support sub-sections for each of the following (based on Garamond's research):
Sub-section: Abbreviation development Brief description based on Garamond's proposal 4.
Sub-section: The SI convention A summary of this, based on Garamond's proposal 1, with the rationale of their two different symbols.
Sub-section: Legal and quasi-legal To cover known legal requirements such as from the US (cf Garamond's proposal 3) and states' implementations of the EU directives.
Sub-section: Abbreviations in current use Based on Gaamond's proposal 2, describing diverse current use.
I agree with Martinvl that the section needs a brief introduction, but do not support the use of the word "shorthand" as it is more specifically used to mean a method of taking notes quickly. I can't see any problem using the standard term of "abbreviation", which covers symbols too. Also it is important that the introduction (and the section in general) remains neutral, without giving undue weight to the preferences of the SI over the preferences of habits of others. Ornaith ( talk) 14:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the above argument, which boils down to saying that the dictionary is wrong, WP:NOTLEX has this advice:
"When edit wars occur over the lead paragraph of a controversial topic, people may turn to more NPOV sources, like the dictionary. The dictionary is one source among many that is generally considered more authoritative than personal opinion."
"When faced with a dictionary definition that you disagree with, your alternatives are limited; you can either find a better dictionary with a better definition, or you can cite reputable sources that discuss the changing meaning of a given word." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ornaith, first, a small point: the SI is a standard, not a body, and so far as I know there's no discussion in the SI about language-independence. There's also not a sense of "preferred" in the document. So fixing these points we might have:
Either one of those work for you? I've just sent you a copy of IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997; I didn't know if you had found a free online version or not. Martinvl, I'm happy to send you a copy as well if that would be useful. Garamond Lethe 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Abbreviations and symbols
Several representations of "kilometres per hour" have been used since the term was introduced and many are still in use today. For example, dictionaries list "km/h", "kmph" and "km/hr" as English abbreviations and the SI representations are 'km/h', 'km h-1' and 'km•h-1' and are classified as symbols.
Abbreviation development
[Brief description based on Garamond's proposal 4.]
The SI convention
[A summary of this, based on Garamond's proposal 1, with the rationale of their two different symbols.]
Legal and quasi-legal
[To cover known legal requirements such as from the US (cf Garamond's proposal 3) and states' implementations of the EU directives.]
Abbreviations in current use
[Based on Gaamond's proposal 2, describing diverse current use.]
@Garamond, would you be prepared to replace the current section in the article with the outline from above, and fill in the detail from your excellent numbered points further up? That way we could see it all in the flesh, and take it from there. We might even be able to close this discussion then and leave it to develop naturally from there! Ornaith ( talk) 09:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
[ This] edit was disruptive.
First, it violates the basic Wikipedia principle that while there is an ongoing content dispute, the page stays at the last stable version. See WP:BRD. I once again Restored the 8 April 2012 23:12 (UTC) version as edited by LonelyGreyWolf. It was almost identical to the result after the latest edit/revert, but I wanted to make it crystal clear that I am not favoring either side of the dispute with my edit. Second, the edit summary was completely misleading.
Settle your differences on the talk page. Make an RfC if you can't agree and need more voices. Do not attempt to get your way through edits to the article without first getting consensus. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
This version is informed by the previous discussion. I certainly expect the discussion will continue. Garamond Lethe 09:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As recommended by WP:BRD I have reverted a recent change to the image caption. If we are to change it, we need to agree the wording first. There are a number of problems with the wording change that Martinvl made.
The original wording was: "Irish speed restriction sign showing km/h"
Martinvl's updated wording: "Sinced the text "km/h" on this Irish speed limit sign is a symbol, not an abbreviation, it represents both "kilometres per hour" (English) and "ciliméadar san uair"( Gaelic)"
My updated wording was: "Irish speed limit signs clarify the speed unit to avoid confusion with non-united miles-per-hour signs that were used until 2005"
How about a compromise, combining the essentials of the two versions:
If that can be slimmed down a bit, but without losing any of the information, I'd be more than happy with that too.
Ornaith ( talk) 15:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the following sentences until we can clarify exactly what it is trying to put across:
Are they saying just that EU speedometers must be marked in kilometres per hour, or that the scale must use the "km/h" abbreviation/symbol? Are they saying that speedometers in the UK only have to have kilometres per hour on them, even though they still use miles per hour there? Either way, can we make the sentences unambiguous please. Ornaith ( talk) 16:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)